From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from py-out-1112.google.com (py-out-1112.google.com [64.233.166.181]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8B9E67B58 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2006 09:06:18 +1000 (EST) Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id t32so4171931pyc for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2006 16:06:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 16:06:14 -0700 From: "Shawn Jin" To: "Matt Porter" Subject: Re: ARCH=ppc or ARCH=powerpc In-Reply-To: <20060824132338.GA27468@gate.crashing.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed References: <20060824123841.4756.qmail@web36601.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1156423796.5640.23.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <1156424295.19482.11.camel@localhost> <20060824132338.GA27468@gate.crashing.org> Cc: linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on Embedded PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi Matt, > The goal is to have the new 4xx arch/powerpc support not break 4xx > arch/ppc support. So as boards are merged and verified working, > we'll remove the equivalent support from arch/ppc... > > Some boards/chips may just die if no maintainer step up to port > them over...but all the important stuff should get an interested > party once we get the initial 4xx support in arch/powerpc working. When can we expect this done? I have a 440 based SoC project ongoing and am thinking when I should start moving to arch/powerpc. THanks, -Shawn.